For those who find Fox News insufficient, One America News Network (OANN) has filled the void. The cable program and news website, although launched three years before Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, proved to be a mainstay of pro-Trump propaganda during his presidency. The network has bolstered Trump’s relentless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Prior to that, it had taken Trump-friendly views on everything from the alleged ‘migrating caravan’ in 2018 to the allegation that the new coronavirus had been developed in a Chinese bioweapons laboratory. Trump himself praised OANN, and early in his presidency referred to the organization as a ‘big network’ and called on supporters to follow its coverage as it helped him try to overthrow the 2020 election . And, like Trump and many on the right, the network was eager to politicize the COVID-19 pandemic and social measures related to combating it. Now, a recent OANN article contains such a shockingly misinterpretation of a public health study that it almost intentionally feels bad faith.
There are certainly many right-wing networks that have politicized the science of public health; it’s nothing new. But this OANN story, pretending to report on a CDC scientific study, was such a blatantly misinterpretation of science and statistics that public health experts were appalled at the public health implications of their misinterpreted message. The heading in question? “CDC: face masks do not prevent COVID-19, study finds that masks have an insignificant effect on coronavirus numbers.”
In the article itself, the OANN news agency writes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “conceded that face masks do little to prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid increasing pressure to lift mask mandates across the US.” In a new study, the CDC found that face masks had an insignificant impact on coronavirus numbers that did not exceed statistical error margins. ‘
The original study by the CDC was entitled “Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Restaurant Restaurants with COVID-19 Grave Rate at Provincial Level – Deaths, United States, March 1 – December 31, 2020.” (You can find the study here.) It describes the impact of state-issued mask mandates between March 1 and December 31, 2020 in the 2,313 U.S. provinces that followed (accounting for 73.6% of the total number of provinces). According to the study, COVID-19 growth rates dropped by 0.5% every day within the first 20 days after the mask mandates were implemented in those provinces. This was followed by declines of 1.1%, 1.5%, 1.7% and 1.8% respectively within the subsequent blocks of 20-day intervals after the implementation of the policy.
Similarly, the mask mandates coincided with a 0.7% decrease in COVID-19 mortality rates each day within the first 20 days after implementation. It increased to 1%, 1.4%, 1.6% and 1.9% in the subsequent 20 day intervals.
OANN, on the other hand, opens by writing that ‘the CDC has conceded that face masks do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 amid increasing pressure to lift mask mandates across the US. In a new study, the CDC found that face masks had an insignificant impact on coronavirus numbers that did not exceed statistical error margins. “According to the CDC study, face mask orders are up between March and December 2020 ‘with a 1.5 percent reduction in infection rates during the two months each”. It is also claimed that the masks were 0.5 percent effective in the first 20 days of the mandates and less than 2 percent effective after 100 days. “The author (s) concludes with a bit of implied snoring, adding that the CDC ‘still recommends wearing face masks, although admitting that such mandates make no statistical difference.’
Salon has reached out to public health experts who disagree with OANN’s interpretation of the CDC study.
“The OANN journalist misread the CDC report,” said Dr. Sten H. Vermund, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, wrote to Salon. “Both of their opening sentences are incorrect. CDC reports that ‘implementation of mask mandates in a very short period of time was accompanied by a reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, while the reopening of restaurants for an on-site eatery with an increased broadcast. ‘ The [OANN] journalists use the ‘per day’ statistics to give the wrong impression that the extent of the impact of mask use was small, while the benefits were remarkably large. ‘
He concluded: “It is disturbing to see this level of scientific misrepresentation in the press.”
The CDC questioned the interpretation of OANN. “The data we have now show unequivocally that widespread use of masks is a very effective way to reduce the spread of COVID-19,” the CDC said in a statement to Salon. They also noted that OANN’s headline was inaccurate as the study did not refer to masks: “It is important to note that the study did not examine the effectiveness of masks,” they added.
Dr. Jonathan Zenilman, professor in the Department of Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, spoke to Salon by telephone and openly questioned OANN’s competence.
“I think they read the article completely wrong,” Zenilman explained. After describing what it looks like OANN misunderstands the importance of the daily drop in COVID-19 cases and deaths associated with mask mandates, he wonders about ‘if anyone knows who should read these things.’ Zenilman noted that anyone who has taken a college calculation can understand what the CDC is explaining.
“The CDC report basically reports on the first-order derivative of the curve, the change in the growth rate,” Zenilman told Salon. “The actual data is not reported. If the growth rate drops by 1.5% per day, it will pick up while they actually see it: ‘Oh, there is only a 1.5% difference between the two curves.’ “
Dr. Russell Medford, chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, wrote to Salon that he was ‘not sure what they (OANN) are talking about (the study IS statistically significant)’, adding that he reads the CDC’s report means the opposite of what OANN says. He interpreted it as’ mask mandates are associated with statistically significant decrease in the daily COVID-19 case and the growth rates of deaths within 20 days after implementation ‘and that’ allowing restaurant establishments is associated with a statistically significant increase in daily COVID-19 growth rates start 41–100 days after implementation and statistically significant increase in daily mortality rate start 61–100 days after implementation. “
This is not the first time that OANN has published inaccurate information about COVID-19. In November, YouTube temporarily suspended and monetized their account after uploading a video promoting a false cure for the disease. YouTube has launched a ‘strike’ against OANN’s account for violating its policy of banning the virus from being claimed.